You hear constantly about how the minimum wage is a tool that prevents slavery, promotes good treatment of workers, and protects the low skilled worker.

But does it?

I will attempt to disprove all three of these claims, and show how the minimum wage does not help, but instead hinders. I'll begin with the claim that MW prevents slavery.

One thing to remember about a free market is that there should be no coercion or force involved in that trade. If a trade is forced, it is not a good trade. It can be seen to be the equivalent of someone pointing a gun to a person's head and asking for him to "trade" his money with him. We can easily see that this cannot be treated like a trade, instead, it is stealing. For a brief moment, he has made the man he is pointing the gun at his slave, and that man must comply with anything the gunned man orders him, at the potential price of death.

Now, let us compare this to the MW. The MW, as you all know, sets a minimum price on a person's labor. It makes it illegal for that worker to try and find a job that pays less than that amount, and it makes it illegal for a business to bargain with their workers underneath that amount. That means even if that job is not worth the minimum wage, neither the business or the worker can sell or buy labor at it's market price. We can see the man with the gun again, but this time, it's the Government.

The second argument for the MW is that it promotes good treatment of workers. But, once again, this is far from the truth.

It can be agreed that good treatment of workers occurs when they are employed by a business that values them. After all, if a business does not value their workers, they will not give attention to their workers. To make this more clear, I'll use a simple analogy.

Let's say that you are buying some wheat. If you buy it at a good price, you would value that wheat. You wouldn't throw away that wheat if you bought it at a low price, because that was a good deal that you got it at. It would be more expensive for you to buy more wheat if your wheat got rotten, so you would take precautions not to let it rot.

In the same way, if a business is able to buy labor at a good price, the business would value that worker. The business would not want to risk loosing that worker, because if the business was able to trade labor at a very good price, it would be much more expensive to hire new workers. Therefore, if business hires a worker at a good market price, they would value that worker over the ones asking for more.

But, the MW changes the entire scene in front of us. Now, workers are all asking for the same amount of money because they are forced to by the Government. This makes workers replaceable, dispensable. If a worker misses their quota, the business can simply fire that worker and hire another one, without thinking twice. Thus, the MW does not promote good treatment of workers, instead, it takes away their value and makes them disposable.

Finally (this is a long post, so bear with me), it is argued that MW protects the low skilled worker. But this claim, like the others, can be dismissed.

One must simply look at what the MW does. It forces everyone, regardless of their skill level, to ask for the same amount of money for a certain job. This is a no brainier: would you rather have a skilled worker working for you, or a unskilled, uneducated worker working for you? They are both asking for the same wage.

That should be easy: any business would choose the skilled worker over the unskilled, uneducated worker. Thus, it is easy to see that the MW does not protect low skilled workers, but instead, out prices them out of the labor market.

For these reasons, the MW is not a tool that prevents slavery, promotes good treatment of workers, and protects the low skilled worker. Instead, when we break down its implications, we see it is a tool of force used by the Government, a tool that makes workers disposable, and a tool that out prices low skilled workers out of the market.

Questions or comments?

People don't think the universe be like it is, but it do.
-Black Science Man

I think this will need more improvement i saw this post but i am not satisfy with this content. However i used to read many blog and i also run a blog by my self. for more visit http://www.assignmentdoer.com...

At 9/7/2016 4:29:18 AM, David_Debates wrote:You hear constantly about how the minimum wage is a tool that prevents slavery, promotes good treatment of workers, and protects the low skilled worker.

But does it?

I will attempt to disprove all three of these claims, and show how the minimum wage does not help, but instead hinders. I'll begin with the claim that MW prevents slavery.

One thing to remember about a free market is that there should be no coercion or force involved in that trade. If a trade is forced, it is not a good trade. It can be seen to be the equivalent of someone pointing a gun to a person's head and asking for him to "trade" his money with him. We can easily see that this cannot be treated like a trade, instead, it is stealing. For a brief moment, he has made the man he is pointing the gun at his slave, and that man must comply with anything the gunned man orders him, at the potential price of death.

Now, let us compare this to the MW. The MW, as you all know, sets a minimum price on a person's labor. It makes it illegal for that worker to try and find a job that pays less than that amount, and it makes it illegal for a business to bargain with their workers underneath that amount. That means even if that job is not worth the minimum wage, neither the business or the worker can sell or buy labor at it's market price. We can see the man with the gun again, but this time, it's the Government.

That's why you keep it low. But, any job that requires an employee should be worth $7.25 an hour (or at least a relatively low pay). The issue is, there's opportunity for abuse by eliminating a minimum wage. That doesn't mean it will always happen, but that there is still an opportunity for it. By setting a low minimum wage, employers aren't tempted to abuse the system but also avoid negative economic consequences.

The second argument for the MW is that it promotes good treatment of workers. But, once again, this is far from the truth.

It can be agreed that good treatment of workers occurs when they are employed by a business that values them. After all, if a business does not value their workers, they will not give attention to their workers. To make this more clear, I'll use a simple analogy.

When you don't have to pay someone more than $5 an hour, you don't value the work. They're easily replaceable.

Let's say that you are buying some wheat. If you buy it at a good price, you would value that wheat. You wouldn't throw away that wheat if you bought it at a low price, because that was a good deal that you got it at. It would be more expensive for you to buy more wheat if your wheat got rotten, so you would take precautions not to let it rot.

That's a very different circumstance. The payment for a worker is ongoing, not just an initial cost. You can replace the worker and find someone else to do the same job for the same price with little to no problems.

In the same way, if a business is able to buy labor at a good price, the business would value that worker. The business would not want to risk loosing that worker, because if the business was able to trade labor at a very good price, it would be much more expensive to hire new workers. Therefore, if business hires a worker at a good market price, they would value that worker over the ones asking for more.

But if you don't have a base wage, you can pay egregiously low wages. There's plenty of young or inexperienced workers who'd fill the job. What you get with no MW is a high turnover rate, which isn't good for the chemistry of the work environment.

But, the MW changes the entire scene in front of us. Now, workers are all asking for the same amount of money because they are forced to by the Government. This makes workers replaceable, dispensable. If a worker misses their quota, the business can simply fire that worker and hire another one, without thinking twice. Thus, the MW does not promote good treatment of workers, instead, it takes away their value and makes them disposable.

Finally (this is a long post, so bear with me), it is argued that MW protects the low skilled worker. But this claim, like the others, can be dismissed.

One must simply look at what the MW does. It forces everyone, regardless of their skill level, to ask for the same amount of money for a certain job. This is a no brainier: would you rather have a skilled worker working for you, or a unskilled, uneducated worker working for you? They are both asking for the same wage.

It protects low-skilled workers only insofar as they don't get paid a wage that can't sustain themselves.

That should be easy: any business would choose the skilled worker over the unskilled, uneducated worker. Thus, it is easy to see that the MW does not protect low skilled workers, but instead, out prices them out of the labor market.

This is true for a higher minimum wage, but a low minimum wage doesn't give such adverse predictions for displacing jobs.

For these reasons, the MW is not a tool that prevents slavery, promotes good treatment of workers, and protects the low skilled worker. Instead, when we break down its implications, we see it is a tool of force used by the Government, a tool that makes workers disposable, and a tool that out prices low skilled workers out of the market.

Questions or comments?

Do you advocate for the complete abolition of the minimum wage?

"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW

At 9/7/2016 4:29:18 AM, David_Debates wrote:You hear constantly about how the minimum wage is a tool that prevents slavery, promotes good treatment of workers, and protects the low skilled worker.

But does it?

I will attempt to disprove all three of these claims, and show how the minimum wage does not help, but instead hinders. I'll begin with the claim that MW prevents slavery.

One thing to remember about a free market is that there should be no coercion or force involved in that trade. If a trade is forced, it is not a good trade. It can be seen to be the equivalent of someone pointing a gun to a person's head and asking for him to "trade" his money with him. We can easily see that this cannot be treated like a trade, instead, it is stealing. For a brief moment, he has made the man he is pointing the gun at his slave, and that man must comply with anything the gunned man orders him, at the potential price of death.

Now, let us compare this to the MW. The MW, as you all know, sets a minimum price on a person's labor. It makes it illegal for that worker to try and find a job that pays less than that amount, and it makes it illegal for a business to bargain with their workers underneath that amount. That means even if that job is not worth the minimum wage, neither the business or the worker can sell or buy labor at it's market price. We can see the man with the gun again, but this time, it's the Government.

That's why you keep it low. But, any job that requires an employee should be worth $7.25 an hour (or at least a relatively low pay). The issue is, there's opportunity for abuse by eliminating a minimum wage. That doesn't mean it will always happen, but that there is still an opportunity for it. By setting a low minimum wage, employers aren't tempted to abuse the system but also avoid negative economic consequences.

The second argument for the MW is that it promotes good treatment of workers. But, once again, this is far from the truth.

It can be agreed that good treatment of workers occurs when they are employed by a business that values them. After all, if a business does not value their workers, they will not give attention to their workers. To make this more clear, I'll use a simple analogy.

When you don't have to pay someone more than $5 an hour, you don't value the work. They're easily replaceable.

Let's say that you are buying some wheat. If you buy it at a good price, you would value that wheat. You wouldn't throw away that wheat if you bought it at a low price, because that was a good deal that you got it at. It would be more expensive for you to buy more wheat if your wheat got rotten, so you would take precautions not to let it rot.

That's a very different circumstance. The payment for a worker is ongoing, not just an initial cost. You can replace the worker and find someone else to do the same job for the same price with little to no problems.

In the same way, if a business is able to buy labor at a good price, the business would value that worker. The business would not want to risk loosing that worker, because if the business was able to trade labor at a very good price, it would be much more expensive to hire new workers. Therefore, if business hires a worker at a good market price, they would value that worker over the ones asking for more.

But if you don't have a base wage, you can pay egregiously low wages. There's plenty of young or inexperienced workers who'd fill the job. What you get with no MW is a high turnover rate, which isn't good for the chemistry of the work environment.

But, the MW changes the entire scene in front of us. Now, workers are all asking for the same amount of money because they are forced to by the Government. This makes workers replaceable, dispensable. If a worker misses their quota, the business can simply fire that worker and hire another one, without thinking twice. Thus, the MW does not promote good treatment of workers, instead, it takes away their value and makes them disposable.

Finally (this is a long post, so bear with me), it is argued that MW protects the low skilled worker. But this claim, like the others, can be dismissed.

One must simply look at what the MW does. It forces everyone, regardless of their skill level, to ask for the same amount of money for a certain job. This is a no brainier: would you rather have a skilled worker working for you, or a unskilled, uneducated worker working for you? They are both asking for the same wage.

It protects low-skilled workers only insofar as they don't get paid a wage that can't sustain themselves.

That should be easy: any business would choose the skilled worker over the unskilled, uneducated worker. Thus, it is easy to see that the MW does not protect low skilled workers, but instead, out prices them out of the labor market.

This is true for a higher minimum wage, but a low minimum wage doesn't give such adverse predictions for displacing jobs.

For these reasons, the MW is not a tool that prevents slavery, promotes good treatment of workers, and protects the low skilled worker. Instead, when we break down its implications, we see it is a tool of force used by the Government, a tool that makes workers disposable, and a tool that out prices low skilled workers out of the market.

Questions or comments?

Do you advocate for the complete abolition of the minimum wage?

I advocate for the removal of any minimum price on any commodity that has been placed by the Government.Seeing that labor is a commodity, as it can be traded freely, when we put a limitation on it's minimum price it has heavy implications that affect all of us.

Think about it this way: would you advocate for a law that states that all businesses would be forced to sell wheat at a minimum price of $15 a bushel? What would happen to the value of wheat?

People don't think the universe be like it is, but it do.
-Black Science Man

At 9/7/2016 4:29:18 AM, David_Debates wrote:You hear constantly about how the minimum wage is a tool that prevents slavery, promotes good treatment of workers, and protects the low skilled worker.

But does it?

I will attempt to disprove all three of these claims, and show how the minimum wage does not help, but instead hinders. I'll begin with the claim that MW prevents slavery.

One thing to remember about a free market is that there should be no coercion or force involved in that trade. If a trade is forced, it is not a good trade. It can be seen to be the equivalent of someone pointing a gun to a person's head and asking for him to "trade" his money with him. We can easily see that this cannot be treated like a trade, instead, it is stealing. For a brief moment, he has made the man he is pointing the gun at his slave, and that man must comply with anything the gunned man orders him, at the potential price of death.

Now, let us compare this to the MW. The MW, as you all know, sets a minimum price on a person's labor. It makes it illegal for that worker to try and find a job that pays less than that amount, and it makes it illegal for a business to bargain with their workers underneath that amount. That means even if that job is not worth the minimum wage, neither the business or the worker can sell or buy labor at it's market price. We can see the man with the gun again, but this time, it's the Government.

That's why you keep it low. But, any job that requires an employee should be worth $7.25 an hour (or at least a relatively low pay). The issue is, there's opportunity for abuse by eliminating a minimum wage. That doesn't mean it will always happen, but that there is still an opportunity for it. By setting a low minimum wage, employers aren't tempted to abuse the system but also avoid negative economic consequences.

The second argument for the MW is that it promotes good treatment of workers. But, once again, this is far from the truth.

It can be agreed that good treatment of workers occurs when they are employed by a business that values them. After all, if a business does not value their workers, they will not give attention to their workers. To make this more clear, I'll use a simple analogy.

When you don't have to pay someone more than $5 an hour, you don't value the work. They're easily replaceable.

Let's say that you are buying some wheat. If you buy it at a good price, you would value that wheat. You wouldn't throw away that wheat if you bought it at a low price, because that was a good deal that you got it at. It would be more expensive for you to buy more wheat if your wheat got rotten, so you would take precautions not to let it rot.

That's a very different circumstance. The payment for a worker is ongoing, not just an initial cost. You can replace the worker and find someone else to do the same job for the same price with little to no problems.

In the same way, if a business is able to buy labor at a good price, the business would value that worker. The business would not want to risk loosing that worker, because if the business was able to trade labor at a very good price, it would be much more expensive to hire new workers. Therefore, if business hires a worker at a good market price, they would value that worker over the ones asking for more.

But if you don't have a base wage, you can pay egregiously low wages. There's plenty of young or inexperienced workers who'd fill the job. What you get with no MW is a high turnover rate, which isn't good for the chemistry of the work environment.

But, the MW changes the entire scene in front of us. Now, workers are all asking for the same amount of money because they are forced to by the Government. This makes workers replaceable, dispensable. If a worker misses their quota, the business can simply fire that worker and hire another one, without thinking twice. Thus, the MW does not promote good treatment of workers, instead, it takes away their value and makes them disposable.

Finally (this is a long post, so bear with me), it is argued that MW protects the low skilled worker. But this claim, like the others, can be dismissed.

One must simply look at what the MW does. It forces everyone, regardless of their skill level, to ask for the same amount of money for a certain job. This is a no brainier: would you rather have a skilled worker working for you, or a unskilled, uneducated worker working for you? They are both asking for the same wage.

It protects low-skilled workers only insofar as they don't get paid a wage that can't sustain themselves.

That should be easy: any business would choose the skilled worker over the unskilled, uneducated worker. Thus, it is easy to see that the MW does not protect low skilled workers, but instead, out prices them out of the labor market.

This is true for a higher minimum wage, but a low minimum wage doesn't give such adverse predictions for displacing jobs.

For these reasons, the MW is not a tool that prevents slavery, promotes good treatment of workers, and protects the low skilled worker. Instead, when we break down its implications, we see it is a tool of force used by the Government, a tool that makes workers disposable, and a tool that out prices low skilled workers out of the market.

Questions or comments?

Do you advocate for the complete abolition of the minimum wage?

I advocate for the removal of any minimum price on any commodity that has been placed by the Government.

Okay. Could you respond to what I've said above?

Seeing that labor is a commodity, as it can be traded freely, when we put a limitation on it's minimum price it has heavy implications that affect all of us.

The value of labor is a real, important thing. We can't take the risk of allowing businesses to abuse the value an employee gives the company. They have to be paid more the $3 an hour. A BASELINE wage, not a "living wage" should be given to mitigate those concerns.

Now, let us compare this to the MW. The MW, as you all know, sets a minimum price on a person's labor. It makes it illegal for that worker to try and find a job that pays less than that amount, and it makes it illegal for a business to bargain with their workers underneath that amount. That means even if that job is not worth the minimum wage, neither the business or the worker can sell or buy labor at it's market price. We can see the man with the gun again, but this time, it's the Government.

That's why you keep it low. But, any job that requires an employee should be worth $7.25 an hour (or at least a relatively low pay).

But who should assign that value: the business and employee themselves? Or a Government that isn't hiring that worker?

The issue is, there's opportunity for abuse by eliminating a minimum wage. That doesn't mean it will always happen, but that there is still an opportunity for it. By setting a low minimum wage, employers aren't tempted to abuse the system but also avoid negative economic consequences.

They can't abuse the system if trade is made freely. If the worker wants to be paid more for his product (labor), he simply must find a business that values his product more. The reason why we don't want to abolish it is because none of us have seen the US before progressives advocated for it, and we are scared of changing it because "businesses are big and scary."

The second argument for the MW is that it promotes good treatment of workers. But, once again, this is far from the truth.

It can be agreed that good treatment of workers occurs when they are employed by a business that values them. After all, if a business does not value their workers, they will not give attention to their workers. To make this more clear, I'll use a simple analogy.

When you don't have to pay someone more than $5 an hour, you don't value the work. They're easily replaceable.

No you don't. You would find them extremely valuable. If you are able to purchase labor at a good price, you would value that worker a lot more than someone asking for more, because if that worker quits, you have to pay double, maybe triple what you were paying that worker.

Let's say that you are buying some wheat. If you buy it at a good price, you would value that wheat. You wouldn't throw away that wheat if you bought it at a low price, because that was a good deal that you got it at. It would be more expensive for you to buy more wheat if your wheat got rotten, so you would take precautions not to let it rot.

That's a very different circumstance. The payment for a worker is ongoing, not just an initial cost. You can replace the worker and find someone else to do the same job for the same price with little to no problems.

No, actually, that's not the case. I'm not paying for a worker, I'm paying for a worker's product, labor. Labor can be compared to wheat because it is concrete and can have a set price by both the business and the worker.

In the same way, if a business is able to buy labor at a good price, the business would value that worker. The business would not want to risk loosing that worker, because if the business was able to trade labor at a very good price, it would be much more expensive to hire new workers. Therefore, if business hires a worker at a good market price, they would value that worker over the ones asking for more.

But if you don't have a base wage, you can pay egregiously low wages.

You can if people are willing to enter into these low paying jobs. They won't because of competition between businesses.

There's plenty of young or inexperienced workers who'd fill the job. What you get with no MW is a high turnover rate, which isn't good for the chemistry of the work environment.

But, the MW changes the entire scene in front of us. Now, workers are all asking for the same amount of money because they are forced to by the Government. This makes workers replaceable, dispensable. If a worker misses their quota, the business can simply fire that worker and hire another one, without thinking twice. Thus, the MW does not promote good treatment of workers, instead, it takes away their value and makes them disposable.

Finally (this is a long post, so bear with me), it is argued that MW protects the low skilled worker. But this claim, like the others, can be dismissed.

One must simply look at what the MW does. It forces everyone, regardless of their skill level, to ask for the same amount of money for a certain job. This is a no brainier: would you rather have a skilled worker working for you, or a unskilled, uneducated worker working for you? They are both asking for the same wage.

It protects low-skilled workers only insofar as they don't get paid a wage that can't sustain themselves.

But they can't get the job because of the competition between other more qualified, more efficient and better trained workers. Did you read my argument?

That should be easy: any business would choose the skilled worker over the unskilled, uneducated worker. Thus, it is easy to see that the MW does not protect low skilled workers, but instead, out prices them out of the labor market.

This is true for a higher minimum wage, but a low minimum wage doesn't give such adverse predictions for displacing jobs.

So you want a low minimum wage of how much?

For these reasons, the MW is not a tool that prevents slavery, promotes good treatment of workers, and protects the low skilled worker. Instead, when we break down its implications, we see it is a tool of force used by the Government, a tool that makes workers disposable, and a tool that out prices low skilled workers out of the market.

Questions or comments?

Do you advocate for the complete abolition of the minimum wage?

I advocate for the removal of any minimum price on any commodity that has been placed by the Government.

Okay. Could you respond to what I've said above?

No faster said than done.

Seeing that labor is a commodity, as it can be traded freely, when we put a limitation on it's minimum price it has heavy implications that affect all of us.

The value of labor is a real, important thing. We can't take the risk of allowing businesses to abuse the value an employee gives the company.

We aren't taking a risk. This type of thing has been done before, and workers were treated quite well. Just look at Ford's workers, they were paid $3/hr. and there was no minimum wage in place. Compare that to what workers are being paid today.

They have to be paid more the $3 an hour. A BASELINE wage, not a "living wage" should be given to mitigate those concerns.

What job is currently worth $3 an hour?Answer: none of them.Who do you know 5 years ago that is still working $3 an hour?Answer: no one.Your claims are all hypothetical, moral arguments that harm more than they protect.

Think about it this way: would you advocate for a law that states that all businesses would be forced to sell wheat at a minimum price of $15 a bushel? What would happen to the value of wheat?

That's a completely separate issue. The juxtaposition of wheat and a human worker is too much to compare closely. Regardless, you've neglected to respond to my other points above.

We aren't talking about a human worker, we are talking about the value of his product, labor. The business isn't paying for a human, and it would be stupid to think so. It's paying for the human's product. Why is this so difficult to understand?

People don't think the universe be like it is, but it do.
-Black Science Man

That's why you keep it low. But, any job that requires an employee should be worth $7.25 an hour (or at least a relatively low pay).

But who should assign that value: the business and employee themselves? Or a Government that isn't hiring that worker?

Local governments. Not federal governments. A successful local government knows the scale and ability of its businesses. Again, it's only as a safeguard to the workers themselves.

They can't abuse the system if trade is made freely. If the worker wants to be paid more for his product (labor), he simply must find a business that values his product more. The reason why we don't want to abolish it is because none of us have seen the US before progressives advocated for it, and we are scared of changing it because "businesses are big and scary."

Some are. It's inexplicably true that labor practices are regressive in relation to lackadaisical enforcement of labor laws. The minimum wage is one of such laws.

When you don't have to pay someone more than $5 an hour, you don't value the work. They're easily replaceable.

No you don't. You would find them extremely valuable. If you are able to purchase labor at a good price, you would value that worker a lot more than someone asking for more, because if that worker quits, you have to pay double, maybe triple what you were paying that worker.

I disagree. There are plenty of people who need jobs, and would take them if they were available.

That's a very different circumstance. The payment for a worker is ongoing, not just an initial cost. You can replace the worker and find someone else to do the same job for the same price with little to no problems.

No, actually, that's not the case. I'm not paying for a worker, I'm paying for a worker's product, labor. Labor can be compared to wheat because it is concrete and can have a set price by both the business and the worker.

But, you still continue to pay for the labor in an ongoing fashion. You don't pay for the labor one day and then not ever again. Wheat is purchased once, that is all. It's very different.

But if you don't have a base wage, you can pay egregiously low wages.

You can if people are willing to enter into these low paying jobs. They won't because of competition between businesses.

That's only true as long as other companies don't also drop their wages. They would.

There's plenty of young or inexperienced workers who'd fill the job. What you get with no MW is a high turnover rate, which isn't good for the chemistry of the work environment.

^ and high turnover rates aren't good either.

It protects low-skilled workers only insofar as they don't get paid a wage that can't sustain themselves.

But they can't get the job because of the competition between other more qualified, more efficient and better trained workers. Did you read my argument?

Yes, I read it. But it makes little sense given the pretext of how *MOST* companies by and large would lower wages if there was no minimum. That reduces competition concurrent with wage drops. Besides, the jobs that would pay below the current minimum wouldn't be looked at by those with high skills and education. When wages go up, you see displacement of the less-skilled, because the higher skilled can get easier jobs with the nearly the same pay as a specialized profession.

That should be easy: any business would choose the skilled worker over the unskilled, uneducated worker. Thus, it is easy to see that the MW does not protect low skilled workers, but instead, out prices them out of the labor market.

This is true for a higher minimum wage, but a low minimum wage doesn't give such adverse predictions for displacing jobs.

So you want a low minimum wage of how much?

Keep it about where it is now, but contingent upon localities. It can really help prevent paying really low wages while not hurting anything economically.

Do you advocate for the complete abolition of the minimum wage?

I advocate for the removal of any minimum price on any commodity that has been placed by the Government.

Okay. Could you respond to what I've said above?

No faster said than done.

Thanks. :)

Seeing that labor is a commodity, as it can be traded freely, when we put a limitation on it's minimum price it has heavy implications that affect all of us.

The value of labor is a real, important thing. We can't take the risk of allowing businesses to abuse the value an employee gives the company.

We aren't taking a risk. This type of thing has been done before, and workers were treated quite well. Just look at Ford's workers, they were paid $3/hr. and there was no minimum wage in place. Compare that to what workers are being paid today.

They have to be paid more the $3 an hour. A BASELINE wage, not a "living wage" should be given to mitigate those concerns.

What job is currently worth $3 an hour?Answer: none of them.Who do you know 5 years ago that is still working $3 an hour?Answer: no one.Your claims are all hypothetical, moral arguments that harm more than they protect.

It was just a random number. The point is, no one can live on $3 wages (which is representative of a wage too low to live on, not specific).

Think about it this way: would you advocate for a law that states that all businesses would be forced to sell wheat at a minimum price of $15 a bushel? What would happen to the value of wheat?

That's a completely separate issue. The juxtaposition of wheat and a human worker is too much to compare closely. Regardless, you've neglected to respond to my other points above.

We aren't talking about a human worker, we are talking about the value of his product, labor. The business isn't paying for a human, and it would be stupid to think so. It's paying for the human's product. Why is this so difficult to understand.

But, if his labor can't earn him enough to support himself, the issue becomes moral.

"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW

Do you wait until the last minute before undertaking tasks and assignments? Most people will procrastinate until they can wait no more and then rush to beat the deadline. When it comes to taxes, there are quite some pitfalls of taking this route.visit this website[url=https://www.lastminuteassignmenthelp.com...]visit this website[/url]

At 5/28/2017 3:21:13 PM, boy25875 wrote:Do you wait until the last minute before undertaking tasks and assignments? Most people will procrastinate until they can wait no more and then rush to beat the deadline. When it comes to taxes, there are quite some pitfalls of taking this route.visit this website[url=https://www.lastminuteassignmenthelp.com...]visit this website[/url]

?How does this relate to the minimum wage?

People don't think the universe be like it is, but it do.
-Black Science Man

At 9/7/2016 4:29:18 AM, David_Debates wrote:You hear constantly about how the minimum wage is a tool that prevents slavery, promotes good treatment of workers, and protects the low skilled worker.

But does it?

Where did you hear this? Who told you that! I have never heard such a claim. There are laws that prevent slavery, and there are laws that protect people of all skills; low skilled included. Minimum wage jobs are usually "starter jobs" jobs where you learn a skill and then you move on to something else with better pay.

At 9/7/2016 4:29:18 AM, David_Debates wrote:You hear constantly about how the minimum wage is a tool that prevents slavery, promotes good treatment of workers, and protects the low skilled worker.

But does it?

Where did you hear this? Who told you that! I have never heard such a claim. There are laws that prevent slavery, and there are laws that protect people of all skills; low skilled included. Minimum wage jobs are usually "starter jobs" jobs where you learn a skill and then you move on to something else with better pay.

I agree. And those jobs ought to be freely traded, which the minimum wage undermines. Also, the workers of those entry level jobs shouldn't feel disposable or undervalued, but a minimum wage does just that.

Also, I like how you just took the first 2 sentences of my entire post and only responded to that. Good on you.

People don't think the universe be like it is, but it do.
-Black Science Man

At 9/7/2016 4:29:18 AM, David_Debates wrote:You hear constantly about how the minimum wage is a tool that prevents slavery, promotes good treatment of workers, and protects the low skilled worker.

But does it?

Where did you hear this? Who told you that! I have never heard such a claim. There are laws that prevent slavery, and there are laws that protect people of all skills; low skilled included. Minimum wage jobs are usually "starter jobs" jobs where you learn a skill and then you move on to something else with better pay.

I agree. And those jobs ought to be freely traded, which the minimum wage undermines. Also, the workers of those entry level jobs shouldn't feel disposable or undervalued, but a minimum wage does just that.

Also, I like how you just took the first 2 sentences of my entire post and only responded to that. Good on you.

When I worked mnimum wage jobs, I never felt disposable or undervalued, I just felt like I was getting the only jobs I could get. I doubt most workers feel the way you describe. Obviously the reason I only responded to the first 2 sentences of your OP is because that is where I felt you went wrong, and the rest of your post was written in the context of the first 2 sentences being accurate.

At 9/7/2016 4:29:18 AM, David_Debates wrote:You hear constantly about how the minimum wage is a tool that prevents slavery, promotes good treatment of workers, and protects the low skilled worker.

But does it?

Where did you hear this? Who told you that! I have never heard such a claim. There are laws that prevent slavery, and there are laws that protect people of all skills; low skilled included. Minimum wage jobs are usually "starter jobs" jobs where you learn a skill and then you move on to something else with better pay.

I agree. And those jobs ought to be freely traded, which the minimum wage undermines. Also, the workers of those entry level jobs shouldn't feel disposable or undervalued, but a minimum wage does just that.

Also, I like how you just took the first 2 sentences of my entire post and only responded to that. Good on you.

When I worked mnimum wage jobs, I never felt disposable or undervalued, I just felt like I was getting the only jobs I could get. I doubt most workers feel the way you describe.

I know that I did. When I worked with a company at minimum wage, I did feel valued at first, but the moment I couldn't come in because of school, they found a replacement for me. In other words, there were people lined up and ready to go because of the minimum wage. I could have bargained with them, made them an offer, but because every high school student was asking for the same amount of money, they were able to "toss" workers away because there were more there, all of which provided the same work for the same cost.

Obviously the reason I only responded to the first 2 sentences of your OP is because that is where I felt you went wrong, and the rest of your post was written in the context of the first 2 sentences being accurate.

But responding to my opening statement means you aren't responding to the actual facts and logic I used in my argument. As a matter of fact, I don't think I need to have said anything in response to you, because I've more than supported my conclusions in the body of my argument. If you have a problem with my conclusions, then please try and disprove their premises. Have you taken a logic course?

And the rest of my post was written to prove the first 2 sentences as true, not the other way around.

People don't think the universe be like it is, but it do.
-Black Science Man

At 9/7/2016 4:29:18 AM, David_Debates wrote:You hear constantly about how the minimum wage is a tool that prevents slavery, promotes good treatment of workers, and protects the low skilled worker.

But does it?

Where did you hear this? Who told you that! I have never heard such a claim. There are laws that prevent slavery, and there are laws that protect people of all skills; low skilled included. Minimum wage jobs are usually "starter jobs" jobs where you learn a skill and then you move on to something else with better pay.

I agree. And those jobs ought to be freely traded, which the minimum wage undermines. Also, the workers of those entry level jobs shouldn't feel disposable or undervalued, but a minimum wage does just that.

Also, I like how you just took the first 2 sentences of my entire post and only responded to that. Good on you.

When I worked mnimum wage jobs, I never felt disposable or undervalued, I just felt like I was getting the only jobs I could get. I doubt most workers feel the way you describe.

I know that I did. When I worked with a company at minimum wage, I did feel valued at first, but the moment I couldn't come in because of school, they found a replacement for me. In other words, there were people lined up and ready to go because of the minimum wage.

The same thing happens at high paying jobs as well; minim wage had nothing to do with it

I could have bargained with them, made them an offer, but because every high school student was asking for the same amount of money, they were able to "toss" workers away because there were more there, all of which provided the same work for the same cost.

Same thing happens at high paying jobs.

Obviously the reason I only responded to the first 2 sentences of your OP is because that is where I felt you went wrong, and the rest of your post was written in the context of the first 2 sentences being accurate.

But responding to my opening statement means you aren't responding to the actual facts and logic I used in my argument. As a matter of fact, I don't think I need to have said anything in response to you, because I've more than supported my conclusions in the body of my argument. If you have a problem with my conclusions, then please try and disprove their premises. Have you taken a logic course?

And the rest of my post was written to prove the first 2 sentences as true, not the other way around.

At 9/7/2016 4:29:18 AM, David_Debates wrote:You hear constantly about how the minimum wage is a tool that prevents slavery, promotes good treatment of workers, and protects the low skilled worker.

But does it?

I have never heard such a ridicules claim, but for the sake of conversation; I will assume your claim has merit.

I will attempt to disprove all three of these claims, and show how the minimum wage does not help, but instead hinders. I'll begin with the claim that MW prevents slavery.

One thing to remember about a free market is that there should be no coercion or force involved in that trade. If a trade is forced, it is not a good trade. It can be seen to be the equivalent of someone pointing a gun to a person's head and asking for him to "trade" his money with him. We can easily see that this cannot be treated like a trade, instead, it is stealing. For a brief moment, he has made the man he is pointing the gun at his slave, and that man must comply with anything the gunned man orders him, at the potential price of death.

Now, let us compare this to the MW. The MW, as you all know, sets a minimum price on a person's labor. It makes it illegal for that worker to try and find a job that pays less than that amount, and it makes it illegal for a business to bargain with their workers underneath that amount. That means even if that job is not worth the minimum wage, neither the business or the worker can sell or buy labor at it's market price. We can see the man with the gun again, but this time, it's the Government.

The problem with this analogy is the man with the gun doesn"t give you any options; either do as he says or you die. The Government doesn"t force you to do business, it just says if you choose to do business in my city, there are certain laws you must abide by that has to do with safety, fairness, discrimination, and even pay. Your analogy doesn"t work.

The second argument for the MW is that it promotes good treatment of workers. But, once again, this is far from the truth.

Again; I"ve never heard such a claim, but for the sake of conversation......

It can be agreed that good treatment of workers occurs when they are employed by a business that values them. After all, if a business does not value their workers, they will not give attention to their workers. To make this more clear, I'll use a simple analogy.

Let's say that you are buying some wheat. If you buy it at a good price,

When you say bought it at a good price, I"m assuming you mean getting it at a cheaper price than usual. Is this correct?

you would value that wheat. You wouldn't throw away that wheat if you bought it at a low price, because that was a good deal that you got it at. It would be more expensive for you to buy more wheat if your wheat got rotten, so you would take precautions not to let it rot.

This would apply no matter what price I got the wheat at.

In the same way, if a business is able to buy labor at a good price, the business would value that worker. The business would not want to risk loosing that worker, because if the business was able to trade labor at a very good price, it would be much more expensive to hire new workers. Therefore, if business hires a worker at a good market price, they would value that worker over the ones asking for more.

This applies no matter what wage he pays his worker. But generally the more a business values a worker, the more the business would be willing to pay said worker. Again; your analogy fails.

But, the MW changes the entire scene in front of us. Now, workers are all asking for the same amount of money because they are forced to by the Government.

No; minimum wage does not prevent workers from negotiating for a higher wage.

This makes workers replaceable, dispensable. If a worker misses their quota, the business can simply fire that worker and hire another one, without thinking twice. Thus, the MW does not promote good treatment of workers, instead, it takes away their value and makes them disposable.

Finally (this is a long post, so bear with me), it is argued that MW protects the low skilled worker. But this claim, like the others, can be dismissed.

One must simply look at what the MW does. It forces everyone, regardless of their skill level, to ask for the same amount of money for a certain job. This is a no brainier: would you rather have a skilled worker working for you, or a unskilled, uneducated worker working for you? They are both asking for the same wage.

Skilled workers generally get paid more than the unskilled worker, but when they compete for the same job, the skilled worker will get the job and the unskilled will not.

That should be easy: any business would choose the skilled worker over the unskilled, uneducated worker. Thus, it is easy to see that the MW does not protect low skilled workers, but instead, out prices them out of the labor market.

For these reasons, the MW is not a tool that prevents slavery, promotes good treatment of workers, and protects the low skilled worker. Instead, when we break down its implications, we see it is a tool of force used by the Government, a tool that makes workers disposable, and a tool that out prices low skilled workers out of the market.

At 9/7/2016 4:29:18 AM, David_Debates wrote:You hear constantly about how the minimum wage is a tool that prevents slavery, promotes good treatment of workers, and protects the low skilled worker.

Questions or comments?

David_Degates

Do you think some part of the issue of minimum wages is legislated by the public"s use of the First Amendment, pointing out basic fact that by principle slavery is a form of freedom, not liberty bestowed by Independence?

Minimum wages is legislation to require dependence on a social network creating by 2nd Amendment definition, when a state formed militia by legislation requiring special funding. Here a self-incrimination is create by legislators as they are passing this illegal separation an added cost to only the economic investors onto the person who is part of state militia without United States Constructional impartial separation or legal representation?